Talk:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello! Per this conversation at the GAN talk page, I am going to begin an individual reassessment of this article's GA status. The reviewer who passed the article was perhaps a little hasty in their assessment, and there are a few things that need to be done before this article can be of GA status. You have been complemented (see the above discussion) as someone who can move mountains quickly to get an article up to par, so I am counting on that to make the article eligible for being kept as GA. I'll have my initial comments up in a few minutes. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. It should be three good-sized paragraphs that summarize the entire article while introducing no new information.
   • As a quote from Geometry guy, "the prose is unencyclopedic, reading in places like a press release. The "Investment strategy" section is particularly weak, describing what the company "will" or "often" does." Please take a thorough run-through of the article to make sure jargon and press-release type language is combed out.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • This article is significantly under-referenced. There are some sections, such as "Investment strategy", that are completely unreferenced, while other sections, such as "RJR Nabisco and the Barbarians at the Gate", have numerous facts and dollar amounts that are unreferenced. In the "Founding and early history" section and others, sentences like "KKR closed out the 1970s completing the public-to-private buyout of Houdaille Industries in 1979, probably the largest take-private of a public company to that point." need a reference. Who says it was the largest?
   • References need to be formatted with publishers and access dates at the very least. The websites in the References section that are not attached to inline notes should be converted to inline notes or removed/moved to the external links section.
   • The first non-inline website in the references section (KKR's Latest Acquisition...) deadlinks.
   • Ref 33 (KKR, Texas Pacific-led group...) doesn't go to the article it says it does, it goes to the main page.
   • Authors and titles should not be given in all caps, even if they are that way in the original document.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • See the above comments on press-release type language. Also, phrasing such as "KFN was an early victim of the subprime mortgage crisis" is suspect. Try to not use words like "victim" unless you have the word in quotes with the reference that said it placed immediately afterwards.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   These are my initial comments on the article. I haven't done a complete check of the prose, due to the above issues. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisions in process

Please note that I have already gone through the article to make substantial edits and improvements per the suggestions above.

• Revised lead to make more substantial
• replaced the legacy / controversial / unceyclopedic "Investment Strategy" with a section entitled "The Firm" (I will give credit to User:Arsenikk who provided guidance on that) which is fully referenced and removes some of the objectionable text.
• Referencing - I went back to reference the RJR Nabisco section with NYT articles. That section is now referenced (although slightly long) as are the remaining unreferenced paragraphs. Now referencing is prevalent in effectively all paragraphs. Also, I fixed many of the more minor referencing items mentioned

There are still some additional areas for further improvement:

• Shortening RJR Nabisco section
• 1990s historical section text

If you have any additional suggestions on how to get this article to GA status, I would be appreciative. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional suggestions

• Many of the refs still need publishers and access dates. Although access dates are sometimes left out for web links to major news agencies (NYT, etc), they are needed for all other weblinks.
• I added fact tags in a few spots that really need references. I also left hidden comments in these areas, detailing what language made the areas need references.
• With all of the other images and tables in the article, the Oreo pictures just seems like padding. It's up to you, but I would remove it.
• The last two paragraphs of the 1990s - Thr aftermath of RJR Nabisco section could be placed into more chronological order.

Once these things are taken care of, I'll take another run through the article and then probably close the GAR. You've done a great job improving the article in a short period of time. The referencing was the major reason that I initiated this GAR, and you've done a nice job of improving that, although there are a still a few things that need to be taken care of. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think all of your issues have been addressed. I expect to continue to make improvements but would suggest you evaluate the article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is much improved, so I am going to close the GAR. A couple things to consider in your futher editing are to 1) Keep an eye out for "press release" type wording and business jargon, and 2) The bullet pointed references at the end of the References section should either be turned into in-line citations, moved to the external links section, or removed. altogether. Other than that, the article looks good; you've done a lot of good work over the past few days. Dana boomer (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)